doughawh said:

Artists would have to rely more heavily on corporate sponsors who are all too willing to use their funds to ensure their point of view is received by the public,
What do we think of the Catholic Church being such a large sponsor of artists a few hundred years ago to spread their dogma.

Saddam Hussein employing all of Iraqs artists to make images of himself to display all over the country.

Is this a form of censorship or a form of benevolent employment of artists.

Is this good, bad or indifferent.

The problem with Aggies child pornography example, as I have stated before is that Jock Sturges and Sally Mann photographs are I'm sure in the hands of pedophiles. Just as the Sears catalog lingerie section and National Geographic African editions were in the hands of adolescent boys 50 years ago. There are probably members of the Taliban masturbating over pictures of a womans calf or knee.

One cannot control or censor material just because some people use it as pornography. Obviously if the children are photographed for that purpose and exploited in that way then that is a different story.

However the fact remains that Sally Manns children had no control over their images that are throughout the world. They received no compensation, and had no say in their usage. The case could be made that since they no longer look like that ( grown up) then they are not really victimized. It's a tough question.

Michael McBlane